Teflon wrote:
Fremantle cant beat a top side.
You acknowledge our game plan in 06 couldnt beat a top side
Geelong HAVE a game plan that when employed IS good enough to win flags.
The rest is a waste of time.
I didn't acknowledge that at all. I've explained 1000 times my thoughts on 2006, and couldn't really be bothered doing it yet again.
I'm really not interested in going down the 'GT was no good' path yet again Teflon.
I made a statement, which I stand by, that Lyon's game plan appears to rely on 100% effort and intensity all the time. Even when we play well, we only just win.
To elaborate (which is probably a waste of time, as you clearly don't read my posts anyway), our current game plan appears to subdue the instinct in our players. Good, natural footballers aren't playing natural football. They are playing a style which appears to be reactive to what the opposition is doing.
This, as opposed to a game plan that allows freedom, or a game plan which is a balance of both, requires absolute concentration and intensity for 4 quarters.
As a coach, if you employ a game plan of this nature, and can't get the intensity from your players, you're stuffed.
You asked for an example of a game plan that doesn't 100% rely on intensity.
I gave you one.
Obviously, when you are trying to replace your best running back and your full back, plus didn't get a pre-season into more than half your list, plus the worst injury list in the comp, you're going to struggle against the best teams no matter what your game plan is. To 'struggle' and only be % off top 4 suggests we didn't completely rely on 100% intensity completely.
If you want argue whether the game plan was any good or not, there are plenty of threads on it already and perhaps still a few (Hard at it, Boppa and SrR) who would love to talk about it still.
But I don't.